tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN December 16, 2015 11:00am-1:01pm PST
huge impact here in the united states indeed around the world. stand by for cnn's live coverage for international viewers. a special edition of "quest means business" is next. for our viewers in north america, "newsroom with brooke baldwin" starts right now. >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. here we go, top of the hour. thank you so much for being with me here on cnn. i'm brooke baldwin. you just saw the animation roll, breaking news. news that impacts virtually every single one of you. the near-certain hike of interest rates that the federal reserve is expected to announce at any moment. any moment now we'll get news from the fed. think about it. the last time the fed raised the rates, the iphone had not come out yet. that's just a little perspective for all of us. june 26, 2006, was the last hike. the iphone was released one year three days later. but while the iphone has definitely gone through a lot of
change, you can see from this graphic here, the ups, the downs, the ups, the downs, this is called the federal funds rate, what it's seen since 2006. a sign of the tough times the economy has gone through. so why does the rate hike matter so much? overall, it will make borrowing more expensive. actually, we're just getting the news being handed to christine romans. you ready to roll? just handed a piece of paper here, we're getting the quick skinny from the fed. what's the deal? >> the federal reserve has raised interest rates by 25 basis points. 25 basis points. so that means it's not zero percent interest rate anymore. you'll have interest rates. you're going to get paid. there will be some interest on those -- i'm getting it in my ear as we're talking. the fed not signaling concern about the global economy, noting considerable improvement in the job market, which is important, but also saying gdp could be
stronger than expected and unemployment will decrease faster. so the unemployment rate will decrease faster. all of this is positive asse assessment of the economy, the fed raising rates for the first time in ten years. that really is the end of the emergency situation for the economy. >> it's a good sign, the economy is in a good place. therefore, after ten years, they have finally raised the rate. can you give your analogy? this is so fantastic, about the hospital and the patient. >> the patient is out of the hospital. the patient is out of the hospital, back home, healthy again. that's the american economy. for a long time, you had the supporting the american economy, trying to prevent the u.s. economy from falling into that great depression for years now. this signals that that emergency situation is over, time to get back to normal. the gdp is growing, yob market is growing. now, some would argue they should have done this a long time ago. the patient has been healthy for a long time and still in the hospital, brooke. now there are some new concerns about a junk bond, little bit of
problems in the junk body market, will that still over into something bigger? not hearing worries about that just yet. but it's been so long zero interest rates many saying it just time too raise the interest rates. really important thing here, janet yellin the speak at 2:30, it will be critical what she says. what are they saying going forward? everyone expected this. gradual increases from here, that and that's what the markets want to hear, that they won't jack up interest rates really quickly but gradually raising from here. >> will she explain, now that we have the news it will be raised, will the chairwoman janet yellin explain what will happen over a prolonged course of time? do we have to wait to see how the economy is in 2016? >> i think you'll see a lot of caveats. they'll say barring any kind of "x" or "y." we want to hear what she says about the global economy but so far in the statement there aren't big concerns about the global economy. there will be caveats and the
fetd will want to change course if need to. it's going to mean higher mortgage rates. it's going to cost more to buy a car. car loans will go up. if you have a lot of credit card debt with variable rates, that's going to become more expensive. those are the ways we're going to feel it directly. but i like to use the analogy of all those 13 people on the stage last night in las vegas who are vying to become the leader of the free world. in about 26 minutes the leader of the free world is going to be giving a press conference, janet yellin. she really is the very important money person right now. it is the fed that really has its thumb on the pulse what's happening with the economy. >> we'll take it. stay with me. i want to pivot quickly as we're getting this news from you via our wonderful producer there in washington, alison kosik is on the floor of the new york stock exchange. i'm seeing a lot of green on the screen as far as trading goes thus far. what are you seeing? >> reporter: several things i've heard on the floor since we heard the fed went ahead and raised rates is, ladies and gentlemen, we have liftoff.
just by a quarter of a point, not much. yes, not much but a beginning of the end. and how is wall street reacting? when it first hit the tape, you saw the market actually fall, then it came back. this could be the beginning of volatility over the next few days auz see investors readjust their portfolios based on what this new pathway is going to look like. what's going on here is investors are saying, finally, finally the fed went ahead and raised rates as it's been talking about all year. and many people here on the floor believe that the fed had to do it today, not only to save the credibility but to give itself some wiggle room. because, brooke, right now where rates were a few hours ago, if the economy did take a turn for the worse, the fed wouldn't have tools in its tool shed to refigure its monetary policy. now it's raising rates, if the economy did hit an obstacle, now
the fed would have a some wiggle room. right now, that rates are on their way up. the session will actually turn to now how often the fed will raise rates and by how much. by all indications, from the people i've been talking to, the expectation is over the next year we'll see at least four rate increases. so that means we could see interest rates at 1% by the end of next year because the expectation is you'll only see a quarter percent of an increase four times over the course of the next year. brooke? >> great question i want to ask that also of my next guest. alison, thank you so much in the hustle and bust emof the new york exchange. harvard professor, former chief economist at the international monetary fund. ken, not a huge shocker. this was anticipated. writing was sort hof on the wal.
your initial reaction? >> well, i mean, it's a nonevent so far. if they didn't do this, it would have shocked the pants off of everyone. they had really telegraphed this is the plan. i think the big question as you said is what's next. >> what do you think? >> what will the chair say in her press conference about how fast it will go up? >> how often could there be hikes? what do you think? how much? >> well, i kind of tend to think they're going to get to 1% a little faster than people think, that that's still a very low interest rate in today's environment. i mean, this hike is microscopic. they raised it actually it was at 0.13 to 0.25. you're not going to notice this one too much. the question is what's next. you know, all the signals that they get are that there are inflationary pressures but they
don't see it yet. but they often build up over time, labor market is really tightening. their core inflation that they look at is up to the level that they want it. and 1% still is letting the economy build up a lot of steam. that's not the neutral rate. so i think they're going to kind of move it up. what she has to say in her press conference is giving herself some elbow room. markets want to hear it's going to be every other meeting, just something really simple. but she doesn't know what's coming and she wants to leave herself some room and tell people what she's going to look at without creating a lot of uncertainty. >> we will be listening to that potential elbow room when we hear from the chairwoman janet yellin in just about 20 minutes from now. ken row goff, thank you so much. christine romans? >> i agree that they're not going to telegraph exactly what they're going to do. they need the wiggle room if something happens in the bond market, if something happens in the global economy, if there's something we don't see around the corner. but the u.s. is strong relative
to the rest of the world right now. it's the way it is. it's make crow xop ick. you think about the interest rates in the '80s. people were getting mortgages with 18% interest. bottom line for you, if you want to refinance your mortgage next year, if you want to buy a home next year, it's still okay. it's still relatively low interest rates for consumers here. >> thank you for the breaking news and the multitasking. >> you're welcome. >> christine romans, thank you. meantime, right now, donald trump holding his very first rally since last night's fiery debate in vegas. will he take on his are rivals on that stage? we will stand by and listen tore that. also ahead, the winners, losers, awkward moments, heated exchanges. we'll analyze the greatest hits for you ahead. and we are watching baltimore very closely today after being deadlocked, the jurjury in the trial of one of those
on location with the famous, big idaho potato truck. our truck? it's touring across america telling people about idaho potatoes. farmer: let's go boy. again this year the big idaho potato truck is traveling the country spreading the word about heart healthy idaho potatoes and making donations to local charities. excuse me miss, have you seen our truck? you just missed it. ahhh! aw man are you kiddin' me?
you're watching cnn. i'm brooke baldwin. did you watch? did you watch? as co-moderator hue hewitt pointed out hosted by cnn, by wolf blitzer will be the one that americans talk about at christmas. ratings figures just in to cnn showing that a lot of you will be talking. 18 million viewers tuned in last night, making it the third most watched primary debate of all time. the candidates talked almost exclusively about how to keep this country safe from limiting
internet access to, quote, carpet bombing isis. each candidate used specific details when examining huz or her plans to combat terrorism. here's cnn's national security debate in two minutes. >> the question is, how do we keep america safe from terrorism? trump says we ought to close that internet thing. >> i sure as hell don't want to let people that want to kill us and kill our nation use our internet. yes, sir, i am. >> we now learn that dhs says, no, we can't check their social media. for heavens' sake every parent in america is checking social media and employers are as well but our government can't do it? >> this is a tough business to run for president. >> you're a tough guy, jeb. >> we need a leader that's tough. you're never going to be president of the united states by insulting your way. >> i'm at 42 so so far i'm doing better. >> doesn't matter. >> i want to talk to the awed jens for a second. if your eyes are glazing over like mine, this is what it's
like to be on the floor of the united states senate. endless debates about how many angels on the head of a pin from people who have never had to make a consequential decision. >> i told voters in texas i would oppose the federal government having the authority to detain u.s. citizens permanently with no due process. one of the problems with marco's foreign policy is he is far too often supported hillary clinton and barack obama undermining governments in the middle east that have helped radical islamic terrorists. >> if you're an american citizen and decide to join up with isis, we won't read you your rights, you'll be treated as an enemy combatant. >> it's actually merciful if you go ahead and finish the job rather than death by a thousand pricks. >> so you are okay of the deaths of thousands of innocent children and civilians. >> you got it. you got it. >> if the u.s. opposed a no fly
zone over syria and a russian plane encroached, invaded that no fly zone, would you be prepared to shoot down that russian plane and risk war with russ russia? >> not only would i be prepared to do it i would do it. >> if there was a no fly zone you say that could potentially lead to world war iii, why? >> i think if you're in favor of world war iii you have your candidate. for the russians frankly it's time we punched the russians in the nose. they've gotten away with too much in this world. we need to stand up to them. >> are you ready to reassure republicans tonight that you will run as a republican and abide by the decision of the republicans? >> i really am. >> oh, so much to talk about. let me bring in jennifer ruben who writes for "the washington post" right turn blog and veteran investigative journalist karl bernstein. jennifer, i start with you, really with the exception of rand paul, jeb bush is the one who really took on doonld trump head-on. do you think he scored points with the establishment in doing so?
>> i think it's a little too late and a little bit too little. i think had he done this from the first debate, he might have maintained his standing. but i think unfortunately for him the electorate have moved on. there are now very good candidates who are up to speed on foreign policy, chris christie, marco rubio certainly, and i think it's going to be very hard for him to get back into the race. thousa now, it's always possible everybody else collapses. but barring that, i don't see he's going to be back into the top tier either in iowa or in new hampshire. >> carl, let me pivot to you and talk about marco rubio. we sort of anticipated that, if i may, his achilles heel would be exposed according to his critics talking about his role in the gang of 8, immigration reform, supporting a pathway to citizenship. how much do you think this, given who you're talking about, achilles heel would hurt him in a primary versus a general
election? >> that is all about the fight for the soul of a right-wing party, including all of this strong talk, corporate bomb them, punch them in the nose, et cetera et cetera. but in terms of rubio and cruz, they're going to slug this thing out. they don't like each other. the real sleeper of the night i would say is christie. we'll talk about that in a minute. >> okay. but bottom line, what we know about rubio on immigration, will that help or hurt him in terms of this primary election? >> it's hard to say. he's got to get through several primaries, and i think that this fight, this mono y mono between he and cruz has a tempt pramtal agent expect. i don't think it's predictive. one thing we know about rubio is he's a really good debater and it's possible with him to have a true fact-based debate, which is something you don't see in washington. with cruz, bomb bomb bomb. i'm tougher than you are. will that play with the right wing of the republican party? probably. but you also have to look at the calendar, which is in
everybody's calculation which gets to my point about chris christie. >> we'll get back to him in a moment. jennifer, carly fiorina obviously the only woman on the stage, and she referenced gender multiple times, referencing the "b" word, the quote from margaret thatcher. here she was. >> i fought my way to the top of corporate america while being called every "b" word in the book. margaret thatcher once said, if you want something talked about, ask a man. if you want something done, ask a woman. >> so do you think she scored points by bringing up her gender or not so much? >> not so much. i think she had a moment after perhaps the first couple of debate performances where she could have really put together a campaign. instead, she's just had a series of debates, some better than others, and i think she's lacking a message. i think that's why you see her sinking in the polls. i don't think a gender-based
argument really is going to work at this point. and she really hasn't advanced as a candidate. what she's saying now is almost exactly what she said in the first debate. you see a level of specificity. i totally agree with carl that particularly with rubio who knows his stuff, you can see that this is a guy who's, whether you agree with him or not, based in the details of foreign policy. with her, it's a lot of surface stuff. i just don't see her catching fire. my suspicion is after new hampshire she'll probably go away. >> we're going to have that whole who's going to go away a little later because it's an important one after the debate. carl, to you, chris christie, i thought he had a huge moment after the back-and-forth between rand paul, ted cruz, marco rubio, metadametadata, et ceter. let me talk to you people, your eyes are glazing over. i can make decisions. but still not huge in the polls. >> again, first of alltion he's looking at new hampshire, and he's on the board in new hampshire. he's the center right
alternative to jeb bush. jeb bush is fading. and also he is getting the support of rupert murdoch, i'll bet. that is going to be a very big deal i think. if he wins in new hampshire or does well in new hampshire, can creates some momentum. trump is going to keep his numbers up, but he also is not going to get the nomination unless something surprising happens that enables him to get a majority, which is very hard to see. but could christie put it together and he can come after hillary, bridge scandal or no scandal behind him, because he gets on there with hillary, and he says liar liar pants on fire! and it's a hell of a debate that the two of them could have. so i think watch christie after this. >> carl bernstein, thank you. jennifer ruben, thank you as well. as we mentioned, the republican front-runner donald trump has just officially landed in arizona, will be holding his first rally since the debate last night.
the trump plane has landed. live pictures in from mesa, arizona. we'll watch for what he could say, any jabs he could take momenta momentarily. also ahead, after more nan 15 hours of deliberations, the judge denying a request made by the jurors today in baltimore in that freddie gray case. we'll take you live to the courthouse. where does this stand? this is so important here in maryland. we'll be right back. 6
. jurors in the high-profile freddie gray case giving it another go, less than 24 hours after saying they can't agree on a verdict. they're trying to hash this thing out, trying to decide the guilt or innocence on this man here, baltimore police officer william porter, the first of six police officers to stand trial after freddie gray suffered a broken neck while being transported in a police van after he was arrested in april. miguel marquez is following the trial for us there in baltimore. i want to begin with you, miguel. we're following every little tick tock in this whole dmrdeli. we know the jury sent a message
to the judge. what was that about? >> reporter: they asked him for the transcripts of testimony, the prosecution during this eight-day trial, heard from 16 witnesses, the defense calling 12. there was lots of testimony produced, lots of transcripts. the jurors wanted those transcripts. it's not clear if they wanted the transcripts from one, two, or all of the individuals that gave testimony during this. remember, there were a lot of experts who gave testimony. jury does have access to the videotape, all of this was videotaped, so they can watch all of it. but it's much more difficult, obviously, for them to fast-forward and go through that if they are trying to get one or two jurors to change their minds. they asked the judge for those transcripts so they can isolate the bits of the testimony they want to show other jurors and perhaps change their mind. the judge said nope, only item that's have been placed in evidence. so the testimony itself, the videotaped testimony, is in evidence. the transcripts of them are not. the jury can't have them. >> miguel, thank you.
i want to talk about this as we await this decision in this case. i have cnn legal analyst and former federal prosecutor sunny hostin with me and in baltimore mu nair ba har, the founder of the local 300 men march movement, an organization working to prevent youth violence through community policing. great to see both of you. sunny, first to you, we were talking about this yesterday, you describing the allen charge. let me just get this straight. since they are still deadlocked, back and forth with this message, the judge can send them back to deliberate. however many times he wants, correct? >> he can send them back after giving this allen charge. basically, what the allen charge, it's okay, you guys can get together and you can do this. keep your mind open. >> yeah. >> listen to everybody else's views but don't give up your own views simply because you want to reach a verdict. so that's basically what the judge in maryland will do, has done. he can send them back again. and i think that is likely, given the high profile nature of the case. >> yes. >> considering the fact that the
nation is awaiting the verdict. i think that's possible. will he send them back three and four times? i don't think so. you have to make sure when you're a june that the allen judge is not a coercive instruction. then you open up on appeal the argument that this judge was -- this jury was forced into a decision. i think perhaps one more time he'll send them back but no more than that. but let's face it, brooke. this is really fascinating in the since that they were deadlocked yesterday. they got this allen charge, again, explaining that they need to go back and continue trying. they came back today. they deliberated for another three hours, then they asked for more information. >> right. >> so this is a jury working very, very hard towards trying to reach a knew anonymous verdict, a consensus. i think what we're hearing is some of the jurors probably remember testimony a certain way and there are other jurors saying, that's not what i raerd. i heard it a different way. so i think what we're seeing is a jury hard at work, and that is a very, very good sign for this
jury. >> the notes, the messages, the questions. >> sure. >> so many people in baltimore following every single precise move from this jury. i'm sure including you, mun nair. you have your ears and eyes to the ground there in the city. can you just tell me -- obviously you can't speak for the entire city, but just for you and your group -- what's the sense right now in baltimore? >> you know, quite ironically, we're less concerned about -- of course the verdict is important, but what we're concerned about is the potential of a spike in violence which is the exact same thing that happened back in april. there are not many people talking about it, but that week of unrest, we had almost -- we did have ten homicides in seven days. there's a lot of people to be frank are not concerned about freddie gray, are not concerned about any verdict, this way or that, there are people here who will use the opportunity to
incite violence and commit violence themselves. baltimore is experiencing one of its highest years of murders, of shootings and homicides, and this potentially could even add even more fuel to this problem that we're witnessing on a day to day basis. so we're all bracing not really for protesters and people who are exercising their constitutional rights but others who, again, are going to use this as an opportunity to try to incite violence in their neighborhoods. quite frankly, there are just not a lot of people who can stop that outside of law enforcement. a lot of people are trying to weigh in and give their opinions. but if the streets, the hood, catches fire and people are out with guns and knives and are doing things, that's a major concern because we're talking about the protection of the elderly, the protection of children, the protection of vulnerable people in these communities that literally won't have the help if this blows up.
so that's what we're concerned about. >> i just want to add, though, brooke, that we now know that the mayor's office, city hall and the police department have been working on making sure, regardless of the verdict, that the city of baltimore is protected, that protesters certainly can exercise their rights to civil disobedience and to protest peacefully, but certainly they intend to protect the city and the citizens of the city. >> nmunar thank you for your group. no one wants violence but i'm sure feeling the pressure. thank you both of. >> let me turn now to politics. republican front-runner donald trump making quite the entrance. do we have eyes on him, guys? not quite yet. he's in there somewhere i'm being told. we just saw the trump plane land there in mesa, arizona. a huge crowd watching and waying, have their shart phones
could protect you from diabetes? what if one sit-up could prevent heart disease? one. wishful thinking, right? but there is one step you can take to help prevent another serious disease. pneumococcal pneumonia. if you are 50 or older, one dose of the prevnar 13® vaccine can help protect you from pneumococcal pneumonia, an illness that can cause coughing, chest pain, difficulty breathing, and may even put you in the hospital. even if you have already been vaccinated with another pneumonia vaccine, prevnar 13® may help provide additional protection. prevnar 13® is used in adults 50 and older to help prevent infections from 13 strains of the bacteria that cause pneumococcal pneumonia. you should not receive prevnar 13® if you have had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients. if you have a weakened immune system, you may have a lower response to the vaccine. common side effects were pain,
redness or swelling at the injection site, limited arm movement, fatigue, headache, muscle or joint pain, less appetite, chills, or rash. get this one done. ask your doctor or pharmacist about prevnar 13® today. . just really quickly i want to show you two different pictures. obviously on the right side of your screen you're looking at florida senator marco rubio talking in new hampshire. this is the first primary of next year after the iowa caucus so he's talking in the wake of the debate. left side of the screen you're seeing a lot of people, not quite seeing the front-runner in the republican race, donald trump. watching and waiting ing for h mesa, arizona. the republican presidential front-runners, ted cruz, donald trump, they're back on the trail tonight. both last night in vegas stumping, now on the west coast. the trump rally in mesa, arizona, cruz is campaigning in los angeles, both likely continuing their tough talk on keeping america safe, especially
with regard to this war on terror, isis specifically. here is senator ted cruz and donald trump last night on the debate stage talking strategy. >> you would carpet-bomb where isis is, not a city but the location of the troops. you use air power directed and you have embedded special forces to direct the air power. but the object isn't to level a city. the object is to kill the isis terrorists, to make it -- listen, isis is gaining strength because the perception is that they're winning and president obama fuels that perception. that will change when militants across the globe see that when you join isis that you are giving up your life, you are signing your death warrant. >> when you had the world trade center go, people were put into planes that were friends, family, girlfriends, and they were put into planes and they were sent back for the most part to saudi arabia. they knew what was going on. they went home and they wanted
to watch their boyfriends on television. i would be very, very firm with families and frankly that will make people think. because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families' lives. >> michael preach ant is with me. such an important voice here in the wake of the debate, former intelligence adviser to general david petraeus, executive director who opposes the nuclear deal with iran. thank you for joining me. >> thank you. >> when you hear things about carpet-bombing and taking out families from cruz and trump and even some others, do those constitute war crimes, first and foremost? >> indiscriminately targeting civilians? yes. carpet-bombing analogy was poorly used. the last time the u.s. carpet-bombed was in torah borah going after osama bin laden. >> what is carpet-bombing? >> several aircrafts dropping
numerous bombs to basically do aerial denial, take out a mountain, a hill. when he talks about carpet bombing he's really talking about bombing formations of ice ice. but those days are gone. isis has melted back into the population. so the u.s. does not indiscriminately target sunnis, but russia, iran and assad do with barrel bombs and other weapons. so when people complain about 70% of the munitions not being dropped in the bombing raids that the u.s. does, it's because we don't have precise intelligence on the target. we're not willing to drop weapons on civilians because it alienates the very sunnis. we need to fight isis and topple assad. if i'm a sunni military agent in iraq or syria listening to what they heard last night, you just have to question what our policy is. they're looking for more leadership but not looking for carpet bombing and taking care of family members. >> there was a lot of talk about violent jihadist extremists or the war on terror, killing,
destroying isis. from your perspective, you have been on the ground in iraq, how -- do their heads and strategies seem wrapped in reality to you? i'm curious your perspective. >> the biggest problem in iraq and syria is isis sees it as one battlefield and so does iran. iran is sponsoring shia militias in iraq. in syria, iran is propping up assad with russia. so when you talk about a strategy, we don't have a capable ground force in either syria or iraq to actually fight isis. you have to did it with sunnis, you have to do it with indigenous sunnis. sure, they can partner with allies like saudi arabia, egypt and jordan but we need indigenous sunnis to help. that's what's missing from the strategy. >> from everything you heard last night, do you get the sense that they know that they understand the realities on the ground, or are these big easy sort of sweeping statements, i'm
going to kill isis? >> right. you could take one thing from each candidate and put together a strategy. i liked what carly fiorina said about brake bringing back the warrior class. a lot of generals were fired that warned -- >> the petraeus -- >> right. allen matis both kind of exited based on these types of warnings about iran and isis. this warrior class is out of the milita military. in iraq we have a generational gap. most americans in iraq training iraqis haven't been there in a combat role. they don't know the forces they're working with. we already have a generational gap not only in our intelligence community but also in our guys training iraqis on the ground. they need to know who these forces are. so i heard bits and pieces that would work if they were one strategies. bits and pieces. but i didn't hear one candidate have a xrstrategy that would fi this. i think rubio came closest to be honest. >> interest there you go. michael, thank you so much. >> i appreciate it.
just in to cnn, plans for president obama we're learning to xrist san bernardino. and the fbi revealing new details about the shooters before the attack and the private messages they actually exchanged before they got married. plus, more breaking news out of baltimore. we were just talking about that jury involved in the freddie gray trial, the first trial. we're getting word the jury has sent another message to the judge. we'll take you there live coming up next. talking tyour rheumatot about a biologic... this is humira. this is humira helping to relieve my pain and protect my joints from further damage. this is humira giving me new perspective. doctors have been prescribing humira for ten years. humira works for many adults. it targets and helps to block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to ra symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure.
before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. talk to your doctor and visit humira.com this is humira at work
cnn has just learned that president obama will travel to san bernardino on friday to meet privately with the families of the victims of the terror attack there. that news coming on the heels of disturbing new details about those attackers specifically. the fbi chief revealing today that two years ago -- this is before they exchanged their wedding vows, before they even actually met in person -- the couple that carried out the deadliest terror attack on u.s. soil since 9/11 made a joint commitment online to wage jihad. but the director of the fbi james comey stressed their battle oath was not a public one. i have our justice correspondent evan perez in new york because you were listening to the fbi director in person. specifically, they were exchanging on direct message via what? >> well, it wasn't on social media. that's one of the important things the director wanted to make clear. >> okay. >> that's one reason why the fbi had no visibility into this. >> there was a lot of criticism, why didn't they pick it up?
>> there was a lot of criticism, because of the fact that perhaps this was publicly visible and this wasn't known when malik applied for her fiancee visa before she emigrated to this country. these communications were happening in direct private messages, and they occurred, brooke, between malik and farook, who she yet had met. they hadn't even started dating really. they were just communicating online. and between malik and other friends. those communications have now been uncovered now that the fbi obviously has been able to get warrants and has reason to go get the content of these communications. they really had no other visibility on these people because they had no -- they didn't raise any red flags up to the day they carried out these attacks. >> so they were communicating long before they actually met in person when they came over on the k-1 visa. >> right. >> beyond that, comey talked about chattanooga. >> one of the interesting things about chattanooga is the fbi was trying to figure out what xktly -- >> the recruitment center.
>> he killed five people at the recruitment center, mohammad abdul aziz. we previously reported that he was partly inspired by the propaganda and the sermons of anwar awlaki, the cleric killed in a u.s. drone strike. we've now concluded it is a terrorist attack, that he did have drug problems, he had other issues, as you know his family was aware of them. and he sought essentially help, looking at some of the sermons about jihad and so on. that's the reason he carried out this attack. at least part of the motivation was this propaganda from anwar awlaki and other terrorists online. then he carried out these attacks killing five people. but the key here is that the fbi has now concluded that this was definitely a terrorist attack. >> evan perez, thank you, my friend. >> thanks. coming up, any moment now, we're watching and waiting for donald trump. you see the plane. look at this backdrop. what an entrance, mr. trump. here's the plane.
there's the podium wooxt. we're expecting to see the republican front-runner showing up and speaking to this crowd in mesa, arizona. we'll dip into that live as soon as we see him. keeping an eye on that. also watching very closely what's happening in baltimore. we are just getting word that the jury has sent another note to the judge. still deliberating. still deadlocked. we'll be right back. ade the all day relief of two aleve for six tylenol? what's the catch? there's no catch. you want me to give up my two aleve for six tylenol? no. for my knee pain, nothing beats my aleve.
tand that's what we're doings to chat xfinity.rself, we are challenging ourselves to improve every aspect of your experience. and this includes our commitment to being on time. every time. that's why if we're ever late for an appointment, we'll credit your account $20. it's our promise to you. we're doing everything we can to give you the best experience possible. because we should fit into your life. not the other way around.
definitely something of note from the debate last night in las vegas, jeb bush. jeb bush a feisty, fighting jeb bush who was more than willing to spar with the front-runner donald trump. jeb bush did not back down when trump counterpunched. here's the clash between these two men. >> if you think this is tough and you're not being treated fairly -- >> this isn't tough. i wish it was always as easy with you, jeb. >> dealing with the islamic terrorism that exists. this is a tough business. >> i know. you're a tough guy, jeb. >> we need a leader that is tough. you're never going to be president of the united states by insulting your way there. >> i'm at 42 and you're at 3 so -- >> doesn't matter. >> tim miller, you are jeb bush's communications director live in miami. i know jeb bush told jake tapper he was having fun. it looked like it. it was a big night for him. i'm wondering where this jeb bush was months ago. did donald trump sort of change
jeb bush's game plan when he joined? >> hey, brooke. donald got a little taste of his own medicine it looked like last night. look, after he came out with that unhinged and unamerican muslim ban that really would have made the country less safe last week, jeb out on the stump for those following him around in the leadup to this debate really demonstrated that he was going to take on donald trump and going to be the one guy in this republican field that will challenge him and call him out as an unserious candidate who's not prepared to be commander in chief. in these perilous times we need somebody capable of making the tough decisions to take on isis. that was the contrast jeb wanted to lay out last night. i thought he did it really successfully. >> there was a big zinger, the chaos candidate line, though even though it looked like he was getting under donald trump's skin. he is not getting his numbers. jeb bush is somewhere in the single digits when you look at all those polls, and i'm just
wondering how, looking ahead, tim, your guy will really be able to take on a pretty formidable front-runner. >> look, i think he showed you last night. this was the first debate since the attacks in paris and san bernardino. i think the american people are looking for somebody who is prepared to be president. who's not going to be the chaos president. and if you look at donald trump's record, this is the kind of guy who is going to alienate our allies. he said hillary clinton would be a good -- he didn't know what the nuclear -- >> what be those who say this is too little, too late? where was this jeb bush months ago? what are your thoughts? >> well, we've got two months until the february election so i tell everybody to hold their horses. basically, what we have is a real close race, a jumble behind donald trum much. i think noteworthy last night for all those looking for a serious commander in chief who isn't donald trump, they see
it's jeb bush. marco rubio, chris christie, basically in a jumble, none of them had the courage to stand up to him last night. i think that will play well for us in the weeks ahead. >> we'll see how the jumble breaks out in the first couple of states. tim miller, thank you. >> thanks, brooke. we're going to go to donald trump, speaking in mesa, arizona, first time he's spoken since last night. >> i was doing great, i've been number one, by the way, since i went, they're all talking about it. in the history of politics they say this isn't me, it's those people who i don't trust worth a -- but you know i go through this all the time and i always say, although today i think the fact that i did bill o'reilly in that corner but they had no choice but to follow. but they never show the crowd size. you know that. i go home. my wife says, did you have many people? because they just don't show the crowd. they show my face, never the crowd. unless -- i used to think the cameras were fixed, that they
couldn't move. modern cameras, at lot of them don't work like the old camera. then all of a sudden we'll have a protester in the back corner and you'll see these cameras twist like a pretzel. it's unbelievable. but i think today -- look at all of them back there. look at those cameras. they are the worst people. the worst. the worst! not all of them. 70%, 75%. it's true. and some are very good. but you have so many dishonest reporters. i've never -- in fact, it's almost amazing to me because i consider myself to get the worst publicity and yet i've got this massive lead. it tells you two things. they're dishonest and the people are really smart. they're really smart. i mean, i'll get stories that are so bad, and then they'll come back, mr. trump, sir, your polls just went up seven points. how could that be possible?
people get it. they know the press is dishonest. it's a whole big con job. so it's one of those -- in fact, in phoenix, do you remember the -- was anybody in phoenix? it was like this. we had 15,000 people. they reported it at 4,000 and then 2,000 and then what's his name, bernie sanders -- he's gonzo now. he lost it when he said hillary is fine with the e-mails. she's not fine with the e-mails. that was really breaking the law, folks, okay? so he doesn't get big crowds anymore. but he was there a little bit before or after. his crowd -- we have pictures -- my crowd. his crowd was much lighter than mine. he had a lot of people, but it was much lighter. they say he had more than trump. not that it matters, but it's just dishonesting reporting. it's one of those things, okay? last night, i had jeb come at me. you know, low energy. no, i'm standing there and all
of a sudden i hear this, donald trump. it's like he said it just the way his pollster told him to say it. then i hit back very, very hard. but look, we need strong people. we need sharp people. we are being killed. we are being beaten by everybody. we're not winning anymore. and i finished up by saying, we aren't winning anymore. we don't win on trade. we don't win against isis. we don't win with the military. our vets are being mistreated so badly it's horrible. horrible. so i just want to go over this. so here we are, ready? [ indiscernable ] really? they're complaining. actually, don't complain. you're going to be the only ones that anyone will see on television tonight. in a certain way, they have the best location. you'll be happy tonight when
you're watching yourself on television. so last night, they do all these polls. it's great. they poll everything. it's amazing to me, the candidates go out and spend hundreds of thousands for pollsters, right? i don't. i've got a lot of money, and it doesn't matter. i have unlimited campaign -- now, think of this. think of this. so jeb bush to this point has spent over $40 million for ads. he's at 2. 2. donald trump to this point has spent $211,000. i don't even know why i spent it. i think i wanted to give some. no, it's true. and i'm at number one by a lot. by 27, 30 points. a lot. so think of it. wouldn't it be nice if we could do that for our country? think of it. so i spent the least, and i have the best result. unlike -- right?
unlike our students where we're number one in the world by far in terms of cost per pupil and we're number 28 in the world -- [ indiscernable ] i think i like that guy. you're right. it's like the reverse. think of it. so i spent the least. i i was going to have to spent up to this point $35 million. i thought i needed to -- what do i know? and these guys, as much as i can't stand them, they give me all this free publicity. no! it's true, right? if i put an ad on, people would get sick, say, oh, my god, we had the whole program, now we have ads. we actually -- please don't put the afds out. they cover you for a full hour. then every 12 minutes they have an ad for trump. no, doesn't work. so i was going to have 35 million spent literally up to this point, and i've spent nothing. i haven't spent anything. but we're ready to spend.
we're ready to spend. we're going to spend a lot, and i think we're going to win iowa. we just came out where we're leading in iowa now, which is a great place. but this i love because this just came out. drudge. now, this is with 15 people. drudge is great. how good is drudge, right? great guy. he's a great guy. they do these online polls where they have hundreds of thousands of people. they vote, somebody would say, they're not reliable because maybe -- they're going to have my people sit there and make hundreds of thousands of phone calls? then they don't report it anyway if i win because if i win they don't report it. they have these guys george will. you fall asleep listening to this guy. if he didn't wear the little spectacles nobody would think of him as bright. this is george will. i've got to tell you, krau krauthammer is terrible. he is so unfair to me.
i'm not allowed to criticize him. he's terrible, i'm going to nice. you have a guy named steven haze. i've never even heard of this guy. when my name is mentioned it's like -- he goes crazy. part of the reason is they all said i was never going to run, right? then i ran. then they say, well, he'll never file form "a," basically a single page where you sign your life away. boom, i sign. well, maybe he's not as rich as everyone thinks. and he'll never file his financials. and if he does, he'll file them two years from now. you're allow extensions. i filed them ahead of schedule in less than 30 days, okay? almost 100 pages, and the press was down there, they said they'd never seen anything like it. they were scouring those things. believe me, i wouldn't be running unless i was really rich because they would have killed me. by the way, you haven't read one report, bad, bad -- i built a great company. i built a tremendous company. very little debt, tremendous
cash flow, the best assets. i'm not saying it because it sounds terrible in a certain way. i don't want to brag. but that's the thinking we need in this country. we have 19 trillion in debt. we have $19 trillion in debt. we built a $43 million gas station in afghanistan, and it doesn't even sell the right gas. okay? 43 million. do you think you could have built that gas station for slightly less? no. you look at the things, the money we spend. $1 billion to build a hospital. you could build seven hospitals for that. we could take care of our vets with that money. we have such stupid people leading us. i used to say they're incompetent. i didn't want to use the word "stupid." it's too crude and tough. they don't know i went to an ivy league school. i'm really like a smart guy. my uncle was an m.i.t., a professor for years. they didn't believe it. they went and checked. dr. john trump. i actually think he was there for five decades.
m.ist t. he was one of the great engineer/scientists. you know, it's like really good stuff. but when they talk about us, they talk about us like, do we know? let me tell you, these are the smartest people. these are the people that made our country great originally. these are the great people. these are the great people. and we're going to take you're country back and turn it around and run it smart. we're going to run it smart. we give $150 billion to iran. listen to this. this i just heard this morning. we give $150 billion to iran. they self-inspect their big site, in other words, where they're making the nukes. can you imagine you call them, we hear you're making nukes? okay, well, let us check. they call, no, we're not making nukes there, you dumb --
and think of this. and then they have the 24-day where they have 24 days but before the clock starts ticking you have to go through a whole process. it could be forever before you get there. and you know the other thing? nuclear is so important, more important than anything. having a deal is good but we have to make good deals not bad deals. but another thing, they get four prisoners they wouldn't even get out. i've been complaining about this for months. long before they did the deal, get the prisoners out! 150 million. so now the deal is done. and what do i hear this morning? >> this is the front-runner in the republican primary race for president, donald trump there. this is the first time we've heard from him since we saw him center stage last night at the venetian hotel in las vegas. we were just talking to the jeb bush campaign a moment ago. a lot of candidates are out and about, marco rubio in new hampshire.
you get the picture. they are on the stump. let me bring in our chief political analyst gloria borger and kathy lynn taylor the founder of the policy people. gloria, let me begin with you. right out of the gate, donald trump was taking on jeb bush. what did he say? he said, jeb, you know, low energy. and we were talking about the sparring back and forth. i'm curious if everyone on that stage last night, jeb bush was really the only one -- rand paul -- who really directly took jabs at mr. trump. >> right. look, it doesn't really pay off for people or it hasn't so far. i think jeb bush is a calculated risk for him to do this. i think it's something he feels very truongly about. i think he clearly feels that trump is not a serious candidate for the presidency, as he said last night. and called his ideas crazy. but i do think it's a calculated risk because all of those candidates who have taken on trump frontally have declined in
the polls. so it's not -- it's really not easy. however, bush is going for a very different segment of the republican primary electorate, and i think in taking on bush he believes politically that perhaps he could boost his chances in new hampshire with those more moderate or independent voters who can also vote in a republican primary. >> kathy, let me turn to you because a lot of people were watching. we were talking a lot the last 48 hours about this relationship between trump and cruz, right? so i immediately, just to refresh everybody's minds, there was an event capitol hill a couple of months ago where we've really seen cruz and trump be buddy buddy. dana bash was talking about their romance, remember this? >> donald is great at the one-liners. but he's a chaos candidate. he'd be a chaos president. he would not be the commander in chief we need to keep our country safe.
>> jeb doesn't really believe i'm unhinged. he said that very simply because he has failed in this campaign. it's been a total disaster. nobody cares. and frankly i'm the most solid person up here. i built a tremendous company. all i want to do is make america great again. >> well, it is a little bit of a romance. i like him. he likes me. he's backed me 100%. when it came to illegal immigration, he was the one person -- and there were a couple other candidates. ted cruz was out there and really backed me strongly as you know, as well as anybody else, and i always respected that. i thought that was very nice. and he actually asked me to come along here. i guess he figured there would be a big crowd. we certainly have gotten a big crowd. >> that was the sound bite i was looking for. kathy. a lot of people last night were watching for any potential attack regarding those two, again maybe to gloria's point, you know what happens when you try to jab back at trump. are you surprised at that, though? why not? >> look, it is interesting. everybody was looking for a
little bit of interaction or sparring to say the least between cruz and trump. it didn't really happen. they were more than frenemies. >> what is that about? >> cruz can't alienate trump's crowd. here was america's tough talking tea party darling, and now over the last week he's making a transition to a reagan conservative. it's not clear if his policy history is going to jibe with the direction he wants to go. i think marco rubio knows this and that's why he very subtly started to take him on about immigration last night. there was a subtle seed planted. so ted cruz is straddling this kind of i need trump supporters, but i don't want to alienate everybody. i want to be the nice guy now. the question remains to be see as to whether that works. >> we knew what the headline would be today, rubio/cruz dynamic. not so subtle at all. gloria, to you, let me stay on ted cruz because just in to cnn,s chair of the senate intelligence committee is apparently looking into some of
cruz's comments last night, looking into potential classified information? what do you know about that? >> well, if you remember at the debate, cruz got into a huge debate with marco rubio over surveillance, and rubio basically made the point that you voted against this measure that makes us less safe. cruz came back and said, look, in the old bill, only 20% to 30% of your phone calls were actually listened to. now this new measure includes 100% that we now have and that i like. so the chairman of the intelligence committee is like, wait a minute, where did you get those numbers? now, it's not clear that he said anything that he shouldn't have said, that was classified. but when you talk about numbers in that specificity, questions are raised. he's not on the intelligence committee so personally i
probably believe that he didn't disclose classified information. but we're going to have to wait to hear from the chairman on that. >> gloria borger, kathy lynn taylor, thank you so much. we'll get more on the debate and who other folks say it ace time to drop out in just a moment. let's get to our breaking news from the business world that virtually impacts each and every one much of us. the worst kept secret on wall street is official out. as anticipated, the federal reserve has just hiked a key interest rate, the federal funds rate, by a quarter point. this hasn't been done in ten years. essentially since 2006. just think about that. that is before any of us knew what an iphone was. minutes ago, the chairwoman of the fed janet yellin explained how solid jobs numbers flun influenced their decision. >> the labor market has clearly shown significant further improvement toward our objective of maximum employment. so far this year, a total of 2.3
million jobs have been added to the economy. >> let's go straight to alison kosik live on the floor of the new york stock exchange. what has the reaction been thus far? >> reporter: a lot of relief here on the floor, brooke. you know, the way investors and traders have been feeling about this, the fed has been talking about raising rates for the better part of a year. and when it happened, you heard one trader yell, ladies and gentlemen, we've got liftoff. finally and finally is really the collective feeling here on wall street because what this winds up doing is giving confidence to investors that the fed actually feels that the economy seems to be strong enough to support higher borrowing rates. it also winds up giving the fed a little extra wiggle room just in case there's a downturn in the economy, that the fed would have a few more tools in its tool shed to go ahead and cut rates to accommodate, let's say, a slowing economy. as far as the market goes, you can see the market is pleasant
about it, very happy, the dow up 174 points. as for how this affects you, how this affects me, well, across the board, borrowing rates will go up. let's say you take out a new loan for a car or you have a variable rate credit card, expect those rates to go up. brooke? >> alison kosik, thank you very much. we've got about 45 minutes left to the close of day, 173 points up on the board. one columnist says only four candidates should remain in the race and everyone else should quit. find out who and why. plus, from trump's back slaps to ben carson's moment of silence and carly fiorina's one-liners, we'll talk to a debate coach. he'll join me live to critique their performances. big story out of baltimore, after being deadlocked, a jury in one of the trials of the police officers in freddie gray's death has sent another message to the judge. a decision could come any hom
came out today thousands of people to run the race for retirement. so we asked them... are you completely prepared for retirement? okay, mostly prepared? could you save 1% more of your income? it doesn't sound like much, but saving an additional 1% now, could make a big difference over time. i'm going to be even better about saving. you can do it, it helps in the long
run. prudential bring your challenges (elephant noise) (mic screech) there's a big difference between making noise... (mic tap) ...and making sense. (elephant noise) (donkey noise) when it comes to social security, we need more than lip service. our next president needs a real plan to keep social security strong. (elephant noise) hey candidates! enough talk. give us a plan.
>> announcer: this is
cnn breaking news. we've got a huge piece of information. we've been watching closely this case involving the death of freddie gray, the first of six police officers charged in his death. we have now learned the judge has declared a mistrial, a mistrial, after multiple days of deliberations here. we've learned that the jury had been deadlocked. they've been sending notes back to the judge, now officially declaring it's been declared a mistrial. do we have miguel marquez? >> reporter: incredibly tense afternoon in baltimore. the jury rang about 30 minutes ago and then it took them forever basically, it felt like, officer porter, his mother in the courtroom, the courtroom entirely packed with people, not only journalists but people from around town, other lawyers coming in, clearly sensing
marilyn mosby in court as well. the jury finally came into court after a lengthy bench conference with the judge and then the judge said, i understand, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have been unable to reach a decision on any of the four charges against officer porter. he thanked them for their service and then dismissed them, holding enk ining everyone in few minutes and allowing them to go after he cleared the courtroom and had a brief bench conference with the lawyers again. the big question now is where all this goes from here and how will this mistrial be viewed in baltimore itself? everybody in this city wanted to know what that verdict was in the days leading up to it. everybody that i would see, that would see me, other reporters in town, asking, what's the verdict? what's the verdict? that's the only thing on their minds. this will be hard for people to understand. it will be back to square one basically, not only for this trial but for the process and for the people of baltimore. i think great concern about what
the reaction to this will be. i can tell you that many people i was talking to in the neighborhood where freddie gray was arrested see the idea of a mistrial as a win for the defense. that means that officer porter gets to go free, that there is another process, and that all of this starts all over again. they won't like this at all. i don't know if that will amount to a sort of angry outburst or unrest because of it. brooke? >> let me ask you quickly, miguel, just a little bit of context before i bring in our lawyers to parse through all of this. we know the jury has been deliberating for multiple days. in the last couple hours they sent two notes to the judge. can you give me me a little more of the tick tock as far as what happened to the jury for the judge to reach this decision? >> reporter: well, the jury yesterday -- we've seen them several times now that they've gone in. 15 hours now of deliberation they've been through. three days ago we started. they went for about three hour, broke for the day. they came back, the next day
they looked to be more comfortable when they broke for lunch yesterday. they looked almost as though they were working hard and perhaps moving toward a decision. two hours after lunch they came back and said, judge, we are deadlo deadlocked. we can't come to a decision. it was unclear then whether they were deadlocked on one or all four charges. the judge sent them back, read them an allen charge, as they call it, basically sent them back saying look at the evidence again, keep your minds open and try again. they went back for about 24 more hours now. when they came out yesterday, they looked -- were looking straight ahead. there was none of that sort of camaraderie we had seen with the jury previously. and when they came back today, clearly it was much the same thing, looking straight ahead, not talking to each other. some of the jurors trying to make eye contact it seemed with officer porter. but for the most part this is a jury that i think was very, very torn by these charges, much like
this city is torn by what has happened here over the last many months, brooke. >> watching the city reaction. i don't know if these are live pictures, guys. let me know. watching the city react to the news. miguel marquez, thank you. stand by. of the fact that this judge has declared a mistrial in this first case involving this first police officer involved in the death of freddie day. i have paul callan and sunny hostin here with this breaking news. appreciate you both. wow, mistrial. surprised? >> i am surprised. i'm actually surprised that the judge did not send them back again. just one more time because we know how important this case is to the nation, quite frankly. not only baltimore but to the nation. everyone is watching. but the judge would know best. he has been in the courtroom from the very beginning. and i suppose if you have a jury come back and say even after the allen charge, even after trying again, even after obviously asking for more information, they still could not reach a
unanimous verdict, then this would be the right thing to do. but nonetheless, i am sort of shocked at it. >> super simple question, though. when we see a judge declare a mistrial, does that mean 50 neat toe, done, or can you retry? >> oh, no. you can retry. the word "mistrial" merely means there's no verdict and the case can in fact be retried. there are situations sometimes where a mistrial is caused by prosecutorial misconduct, and then double jeopardy might apply. >> but that's not this case. >> no. if this is a situation where there's a swrit mat deadlock, a hung jury, this case can be retried. i agree with sunny on virtually everything she said. but i wanted to add one other thing. i'm shocked that the prosecutor picked this case to start. i mean, if you're going to send a message that we have a case that reflects justice and that is the correct case, i don't think you start out with the problem case. >> good point. >> this case looks to be a very weak case, and obviously if
there's a hung jury it was presented in a weak way. >> let me get to that in just a moment as i'm listening to you. i also know these are live pictures here in baltimore. let's just dip in and listen quickly to what these folks have to say. >> hired by a corrupt mayor! voted in by a corrupt city council to protect! on election day, we got to make sure we go out to the polls, election day is april 26th. the eve of the baltimore uprising, we got to make sure we vote out the corruption and vote in a new wave called convictions for killer cops. we've got to bring in a new leadership. we cannot continue to be led by the blind. we are fighting for our lives. i don't want to be out here again fighting for another person because there will be another hash tag. baltimore police just got the message they can get away with killing black people. >> we have an eye on the streets of baltimore. we have crews who have been there for quite a while, cnn crews inside the courtroom. i've got lawyers here and andy
al per steen in baltimore, andy al per steen, a mistrial. does that surprise you? >> well, it doesn't prize me. i mean, it's a polarizing issue. the issues in this case were confusing and the evidence against this particular officer was unique and different from the other defendants. >> are you with me, andy? >> can you hear me? >> yes, i can. i didn't know if that was a complete thought. the charges here, let's walk through and remind everyone involving officer william porter. charges involuntary manslaughter, second degree assault, misconduct in office and reckless endangerment. so i think to paul callan's point, i'd love to hear you on this, are you -- the fact that they went with officer porter as the first police officer in these six different trials since they severed the cases, six officers charged separately, thoughts on the fact that he
went first. >> well, this officer went first because, at least in part, the state had said in pleadings that they wanted to have him as a witness available against the driver, caesar goodeson who is scheduled to go to trial in early january. their thinking seemingly was, if he was convicted, maybe they could flip him and get him to become a witness for the state when faced with potential incarceration and a conviction. on the other hand, if he was acquitted, he became what's called a compellable witness. he could be forced to testify. he's a police officer. i would he would be served and would be the way they would go. this hung jury is really i think a major setback for the state because they have neither option available. officer porter remains a charged defendant, and he has a fifth amendment privilege. in other words, he can't be compelled to testify against officer porter. the evidence against officer porter was unique because he's the only one of these officers that made a very meaningful
statement, and that statement was used against him. and in that statement he talked about the role of some of the supervisors, the other officers, and especially the driver. so that evidence is not necessarily available to the state at this point, and it's really a big setback for the state. >> danny savalas is joining us as well. i think andy hit on an important point. this officer, he testified himself. i'm wondering when this case is tried again, who has the advantage going into that next trial? would it be the defense? >> in this case, probably. i mean, you could argue that any hung jury is an advantage for the defense. but at the same time i feel the defense attorneys probably believed that this would be a not guilty. so this is probably to them a bit of a set-back. however, the question arises, will he be prosecuted again? and i have to agree with andrew that the set of dominos that the prosecution set up in trying
officer porter first has not only not fallen. now there's going to be considerable delay. it pushes back their entire strategy considerably because if this defendant is not convicted they have no leverage to use against him. he's still a charged defendant. he will not be testifying against officer goodson in the near future. so i think their plan of severing these trials, for whatever strategy it was, left them proving a small portion of the case against one defendant and now that has not ended in a guilty, as the prosecution had hoped. >> go ahead, paul. >> i wanted to add that there was a third option that was available to this prosecutor that she did not utilize and a lot of other prosecutors would have, and that was if she needed officer porter as a key witness against the other cops, she could have given him immunity. >> full immunity. >> and forced him to testify. you give them immunity. he can't assert the fifth amendment. he then has to tell the story on
the witness stand. instead, what they chose to do is to try him in this case so that he was either convicted and he couldn't assert the fifth amendment or acquitted and he couldn't assert the fifth amendment. now they're stuck in the middle. they've got a mistrial. do they retry him or not? >> is that even a question, though, of retrying? >> absolutely. >> this is a huge case in baltimore. >> i think there's no question this prosecution is going to want to retry this case. but i think that a prosecutor never wants to retry a hung jury case because now the defense has seen your entire case, your witnesses. >> your cards have been played. >> they have already provided testimony. i agree with paul. it's really interesting because when you're prosecuting this type of case and you have multiple potential defendants, you want to get at least -- you want to offer a plea deal, you want to get someone who was there that will testify against one ever the other defendants. in this case, it's very clear that none of these officers wanted to do that. a lot of people are talking
about the blue wall of silence. but that seems to have happened. and i don't understand why this prosecution, acting so very quickly to bring these cases, didn't offer anyone immunity. that is very, very shocking to me and quite frankly i've been critical from the very beginning about how quickly this prosecution brought these cases. you know, in order to get i think a fair and impartial jury, the riding happened in baltimore -- it was such a short time ago to get this jury and to bring it in front of this jury this kind of evidence, i remain critical of the decision to try all six of them in this order this quickly with these charges. i think the gamble didn't pay off. >> how much pressure, though? we were in baltimore off and on for much of the spring covering the unrest, the demonstrations, and in some cases violence in the wake of this death and
eventually you have six officers charged. now, though, i imagine the pressure is on, depending on how the city reacts, to this mistrial to retry this case. can you do it pretty quickly, immediately? >> it could in theory be brought to trial very quickly. >> right. >> a couple of months. you have to get transcripts of all of the testimony prepared and certified. there will be motions to exclude certain evidence. so believe me, two months would be a super fast time period. what's more likely to happen is that you'll see them move on to another defendant in the case and go to trial in that case and then maybe come back to this later, if the prosecutor can put together a case without porter's testimony. if this is the linchpin of these other prosecutions, they're in big trouble, and a lot of lawyers who looked at this case initially said, very shaky case, they moved too quickly, it's very hard to make out a case against the cop. and one of the reasons is that, with the blue wall of silence,
the amount of proof that's necessary is a lot of times more than in a normal case. so prosecutors usually move slowly and deliberately when a cop is going to be charged. here, this cop was charged very quickly. >> danny savalas, we're looking and if we can put it up full, the makeup of this jury. can you just remind us who these jurors are. >> these are jurors from the community so that was always an "x" factor in this case. we can always talk about the makeup according to male/female, african-american/caucasian. but i think many trial lawyers would caution not to put too much stock in that kind of astrology, in that kind of guessing, reading tea leaves and figuring out how someone might vote based on their race or their gender. i think almost every trial lawyer has been surprised at the end of a case who a holdout was or whether or not they've had a particular jury pegged for one position and they came out on the total opposite position.
i'm sure all the attorneys with us today have had a personal experience like that. i know i have. but with that in mind, the one thing they all shared in common is that they were from the community. so the question arises, how much did the events much the past few months seep into their decision? even if they are -- everyone knows the reality as jurors, they're not supposed to talk about the case or read anything about it. but by mere osmosis, it's simply impossible to prevent all information from getting to jurors one way or the other. so one has to wonder. i'm sure the prosecutors thought they would benefit from bringing this case quickly because the riots and all of the unrest would be fresh in people's mind. but at the same time, to echo what paul and sunny have been saying, this may be a casualty of having brought a case too quickly for the prosecution. >> which is precisely what you were saying. >> yeah. and i said that on the day that the state's attorney marilyn mosby made this announcement. what struck me when she made the
announcement, brooke, was that she said things like, i hear your calls for justice. well, guess what? prosecutors aren't supposed to do that. what she said on the steps during the announcement. the bottom line is, you are seeking the truth. you are seeking justice. but you are not supposed to beholden to public opinion. i feel that was an early misstep. i feel it was a misstep again to bring this case so very quickly, given the jury probably knowing if they acquitted that that could be a very unpopular decision because i think what we are hearing from -- at least i'm hearing from people, now the community feels here is another cop not being held accountable for the death of a young african-american man. so people are now feeling that the justice system in and of itself is flawed, that the prosecutors are in bed with the police officers. >> on the flip side, on the other side, some would say this is not a cut and dried case.
let me just jump in. i was just passed this information. the judge in this case has officially told the attorneys to report back to court tomorrow morning to set a new trial date. there you go. defense attorney declined to comment, saying he was subject to a court gag order. par for the course. >> yes. this is exactly how it happens. >> the prosecution must have said, we're going to bring this case again. >> already. >> what i'd like to know, too, is we'll hear this probably by tomorrow, what was the split in the jury deliberations? >> will we get all that information? >> we may very well. the jurors can speak to the press if they wish to and tell about the vote. was there a racial split? did white jurors vote one way, african-americans jurors vote the other way? they will be looking at all of these factors when deciding how to retry the case. >> let me pivot back to baltimore to miguel marquez who is there. miguel, tell me who you have with you. >> reporter: i have tessa hill with me. if there's anybody in baltimore who has the pulse of this community, it is you.
you are with the naacp, head of the local naacp chapter. you've been in court for most of this time. you were not expecting a mistrial. >> no, i wasn't. i thought that officer porter would be convicted on misconduct and reckless endangerment. >> reporter: and what sort of reaction do you hear, this sort of verdict or this sort of outcome will produce? >> already now the activists outside the courthouse marching and protesting. i think it's going to happen all over the city. the main thing that i hope and pray is that no one does any damage to any property and no one causes themselves to be in danger with the police. >> reporter: you were in there for the announcement of the mistrial, that they were hung on all four charges. it has been a tense time the last couple of days waiting for this. what was it like for you as a baltimorean to sit there and listen to this? >> as much as i have respect for the police, in this case, freddie is dead and he didn't have to be dead. and officer porter, the officer
that was on trial here today, admitted that freddie asked him for medical help and he didn't give it to him. so that is the part that's very sad and the part the community will be upset about and also myself. i think at the end of the day, when someone asks for help and they're in the back of a van and they need medical attention and doesn't get it, maybe freddie could still be alive. >> reporter: it feels a bit like a tinder box with people angry not just outside the courthouse but in the neighborhood where freddie was arrested. the police collecting in certain areas preparing for possible unrest in the city. how do you read what's happening here? >> i know the police have been working in the past couple of months to make sure that they don't allow anyone to destroy the community. so i know that's very important and i agree with the fact that no one should destroy anything. i also don't want any citizens to get locked up or hurt in the process because there's always somebody who will do something wrong or someone to get caught up with someone doing something wrong. that's what i'm concerned about.
i'll probably be out in the street the rest of the evening with some of my other members of the naacp trying to make sure -- i've talked to a couple of the young men over there. i know them personally. i asked them to stay out of the harm's way of the police. >> reporter: a very unsatisfying moment for baltimore after everything this city has been through. where is this city this afternoon? >> sad. it's very sad. because i think that everybody was very happy the police got indicted and not to get a conviction is painful. very painful. for the whole city. and i know people wanted to -- i hate to use the word rejoice, but we wanted victory in the sense that officers can't get aquay with killing someone. >> reporter: do you think it's already forced enough changes in the police department, or is it going to take a conviction of porter or goodson or one of the police officers before people feel there's a real change? >> i think the police is working hard at changing, but unfortunately there's still some renegade policemen that might mess that up. right now i think the community
wants victory in the courtroom so they feel they got their justice. that's what the community wants. >> reporter: they're not feeling it tonight. >> no, they're not. >> reporter: tessa, thank you very much. i think that is the sense that you will hear throughout the streets of baltimore, the sense that they are pleased that these officers were being held accountable, have been charged, but this idea that there's a mistrial, there already is a feeling that the treatment of these officers, all six of them in this process, is wholly different than anybody else in the neighborhoods here would experience if they were charged with similar crimes. and now this will probably not be received well. it's not clear it will amount to great unrest. brooke? >> miguel marquez speaking with the head of the naacp in baltimore, getting a sense of how the city is feeling. as she said in a word, it's sad, now that we've learned this mistrial has been declared in this first of what was supposed to be six separate trials, six different police officers, involved in the death of freddie gray back this past spring.
i have sunny hostin with me and paul callan who have been providing legal insight as far as what this means moving ahead for the city, these other separate trials, and i think it's important to just go back to the point for people who are just joining us, to your point, about you were surprised that it was this particular officer who was the initial officer as a defendant in this first of six trials. why? >> for several reasons. first, porter is an african-american officer, and, given the background of this case, there was a feeling in the african-american community i think that the police had been mistreating people for a long time based on race so it's a little surprising that you would pick as the first cop to try an african-american police officer as opposed to maybe one of the white police officers where you could have at least articulated that there was some sort of racial animus in addition to police misconduct. and the second thing is, you
like to start out very strong as a prosecutor because when you've got -- >> to set a tone. >> -- six cases, if you lose the first case -- we could talk about the republican debates for a second and say, what kand dad started out the strongest tends to hold the fort. >> let me just pause for a moment. let's hear what the officer is saying with the bull horn. >> you are impeding the free flow of foot traffic and vehicle traffic! i need everyone to clear the lanes so people can move about freely. thank you.v"vt >>ñthere you go. just trying to tell, this baltimore sheriff, the folks in baltimore -- this looks like city hall, i can't be for sure -- this crowd of protesters, activists, to disperse the courthouse. thank you. go ahead. >> as i was saying, as in the republican debates which you've been covering all day, that's the first debate set the tone for all of the other debates
that followed. very much the same thing happens in courtrooms. you have an acquittal or a hung jury in the first case, it's going to set the tone and that's not a good tone for the rest of the cases. >> i think -- >> for the prosecutor. >> i think it's also important to remind people, remember there was at one point there was a question of should they all six be tried together? they decided to try them separately. why? >> we knew that. that always makes sense because when you try a case together, i think it's very difficult for a jury to sort of parse out culpability per defendant. so defense teams and prosecution teams, quite frankly, more often than not want these cases severed. that made a lot of sense to me. but i think, again, what didn't make sense was -- i don't want to call it a rush to judgment because i think that's very cliche. but the rush to trial. i think from a social justice perspective, when you're a
prosecutor, you have to think about what kind of message you are sending to the community when you have an acquittal right out of the gate or a hung jury right ute out of the gate, often the people in the community will feel like they have no justice, like officers are held unaccountable when you talk about the death of a young african-american man. let's face it. you had a healthy young man get into police custody and end up dead. someone is accountable for it, right? he didn't kill himself. so when you have this kind of outcome, you are going to have a very explosive situation, which is i'm sure this feeling of despair in the community. >> looking at these pictures, some arrests i'm being told, altercations in the streets here, obviously this is a huge mix of people who live in the
city presumably. there's somebody being hauled away right now. the sheriff's department was saying, please disperse. this is the reality on the ground in the wake of this mistrial being declared. this is a massive, massive case, as you two have so eloquently been explaining. this really sets the tone. six different cases. we all remember the pictures. wet don't have to throw them up on the screen. you remember what happened in baltimore back in april in the wake of the death of freddie gray. this was a saddened city, a furious city, a city that was really torn apart. but i think, to your point, you're talking about marilyn mosby, state's attorney. you're saying she took it on so quigley. perhaps the flip side is, we saw what happened in baltimore. if the city had -- let's listen in. >> clear the sidewalk! clear the sidewalk! clear the sidewalk! >> now we have sheriff's deputies -- >> he didn't do anything! >> point being, what if this had
taken a while to go to trial? >> and i'm not suggesting that it should have taken a year or two years. >> right. >> we've seen those cases where, like in chicago, you have no justice for over a year. you have no indictment. you have no charges. that doesn't make sense. but in this case, correct me if i'm wrong, brooke, i believe we were on the ground together in baltimore, we had charges in this case perhaps less than two months. >> it was quick. >> it was very, very quick. i think, you know, the downside of that sort of very quick action is this. you perhaps don't put together the best strategy. perhaps you don't put together the strongest case. and you are left now with a community, quite frankly, that feels that justice can never be sought when there is the victimization of a young black man. and to paul's point when he
discussed the racial component, i've always felt that this case was much less about race than it was about police brutality. because we did have three officers of color involved in this arrest. >> including this officer who was just granted a mistrial. >> including this officer. there was a woman involved in the arrest. what i heard from the community of baltimore was much more the narrative of why are police officers in general victimizing, overpolicing, brutalizing our community? and again, that feeling of despair that i heard when i was in baltimore i am certain is going to be so pervasive now based on this result. >> and you know, on that point that sunny raises, i think that's why the district attorney decided to try this case first, because if an african-american cop was convicted by a jury that was a fair mix of the community, the tone would be entearily different. it would be, you know, the police are being judged. this is not a racial case.
but you have to focus on the facts of this case, the poerter case. porter claimed that he, when told by freddie gray, that freddie gray needed medical attention, went to goodson the driver and reported that. he was under the assumption that if he needed help he would be getting the help. the big criticism of him was that he did not seat belt freddie gray into the van after the complaint. but in the history of the baltimore police department, it's been very rare that the cops have seat belted suspects. there is a rule of procedure that requires it, but it's one of those rules that, according to testimony in the case, most of the cops don't follow. so it really came down to, i think, really substantively a seat belt claim against porter. and is a jury going to convict porter of reckless manslaughter because you don't put a seat belt on a suspect in a criminal case? >> let me pull away from the two of you here in new york. andy alperstein i want to go to
the streets of baltimore, an attorney who's been following the community sentiment, what's happened in the courtroom. andy, can you tell me as we're looking at the ariierial pictur of the demonstration after the mistrial, can you tell me what you're seeing and hearing? >> well, i think that the community is reacting to a hung jury as if it is an acquittal. we should remember and point out that an acquittal is not necessarily a hung jury. so it's not an acquittal. the officer is not free. they have the right to try him again. >> andy, i'm having a hard time hearing you. i don't know if the camera mike is on, but let's try to work on that. back to you two just quickly as that gets fixed, his point is people in baltimore need to recognize that this isn't going away. as we've been reporting, the judge has asked the lawyers to report back to the court tomorrow morning, meaning this
will be tried again. >> i think that's right. again, it doesn't i think assuage probably the feeling of justice not being had, justice delayed is still justice so let's say he gets retried in a couple of months and there is a conviction. i think many will feel that that is justice. but, again, this is a blow i think to the prosecution, and i think certainly there is going to be a feeling in the community that, yet again, justice cannot be had when you are a young black man. and i think people will start thinking about eric garner. they will start thinking about tamir rice. they will start thinking about the cases of police overreaching and police brutality. >> you know what's going to be interesting, sunny, though, tomorrow will the prosecutors go into court and say, we're going to retry this case? because normally in a situation like this there's a big reevaluation process that goes on in a district attorney's office.
>> right. >> what do you mean reevaluation? >> they will get the transcripts from the trial. if they can, they'll speak to the jurors to find out what the jurors thought were the weaknesses in the case to decide whether the case should be retried or whether different charges maybe should be proffered that would be more appropriate. but if they walk into court tomorrow and say, we are retrying this case, they're going to be accused of the same thing that mosby was accused of in the first place, and that is jumping the gun and moving too quickly on a complicated, complex fact pattern. >> let me read the statement just handed to me from stephanie rawlings blake the mayor in baltimore. a few minutes ago, judge barry g. williams declared a mistrial in the criminal case of officer william porter because the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. it is now up to state's attorney marilyn mosby whether to further pursue charges. this is our american justice. 12 baltimore residents listened to the evidence presented and were unable to render a
unanimous decision. as a nun i fied city, we must respect the outcome of the judicial process. in the coming days, she says, if some choose to demonstrate peacefully to express their opinion, that is their constitutional right. i urge everyone to remember that collectively our reaction needs to be one of respect for our neighborhoods and for the resid businesses of our city. in the case of any disturbance in the city we are prepared to respond. we will protect our neighborhoods, our businesses and the people of our city. that's from the mayor of the city of baltimore. just backing up a couple of steps here in case you are just joining us, we're getting this breaking news here from the freddie -- you see on the screen freddie gray case. this is the first officer being tried, officer william porter. the jury had been deliberating i believe it was 15 hours, three days, deadlocked, told to go back by the judge, keep hashing this out. they couldn't reach this unanimous verdict. and so this has been declared a mistrial. we know that the lawyers are
going to be back with the judge tomorrow morning to potentially assuming try this case again. sitting here with us sunny hostin and paul callan, you, sunny, said you were surprised that the judge didn't say to this jury one more time go back. >> i am. because the judge did have that at his disposal. and so, you know, i thought that perhaps he would send them back just one more time. you want to be careful not to coerce a verdict because then you have this situation where it's ripe -- >> the pressure is on to have a verdict. >> the pressure is on. and guess what, if there's a conviction the defendant is immediately going to appeal and say that the judge was coercive in the charge. but i did think it was going to go back. again, i wasn't in the courtroom every single day. this judge knew this case inside and out. he had this case from the very beginning. and clearly he thought that this jury could not reach a consensus. >> and i think one of the things we don't know also, brooke --
>> we don't know a lot. >> what did the judge know from speaking to the jurors or reading whatever last note they sent? for instance, if he got the sense maybe it was an 11 to 1 split or 10 to 2 split, close to a verdict, then he might send them back and say, you know, talk to each other and see if you can reach agreement. on the other hand if it was a 7-5 split or 6-6 split and people are just locked in in their positions, he would have a sense that further deliberation would be pointless and there would be no verdict coming. so i think probably this judge brought his own experience to the table and said, you know, it's pointless to send them back. >> i have bernie car rack on the phone, former police commissioner here in the city of new york. you're looking at these pictures play out. law enforcement, you know, telling these crowds to disburse hoping for, you know, no violence. obviously allowed to to demonstrate. your reaction to all of this. >> well, i think people have to
understand this is a process. if you called for justice, this is a part of that process. and this isn't an end all. this is going to go on one way or another. we'll have to see what the state's attorney says what her determination is as far as what she wants to do going forward. but i don't think anybody should jump to any conclusions based on what's happened so far. and let's see how it plays out. i think the protesters, you know, they have a right to protest peacefully. but don't get out of hand. don't d don't destroy property, don't attack people. if that's the way they're going to respond, that's fine. >> i want you to respond to this notion of this blue wall of silence among these different officers who, you know, six in total who will be tried here in baltimore. and, you know, sort of how law enforcement by some has been painted very critically specifically in baltimore. i want you to respond to that. >> well, you know what, i
don't -- especially in this case you have six officers, six different officers that all have been charged with this homicide in some way. one way or another. obviously they all have to look out for their own best interests. i don't see anybody jumping on the bandwagon to testify or not testify for someone else in some way to help them. nobody's going to prison for someone else. you know, they're not going to lie. they're not going to, you know, conceal anything. they have their own interests to worry about. these are serious, serious charges. and i think they in their own interest they have to preserve their own rights. so, you know, this whole wall of silence, there were six people involved. six people were charged. and, you know, they have to still have their day in court. so i think we have to see what plays out. >> if you were on the ground
right now in baltimore. and we know now it's this interim police chief, remember the man who was in charge through everything in april is no longer in charge. but if you are the top brass, and who knows what -- hopefully everything will be peaceful. let's all cross our fingers in the coming days, what are you telling your officers heading into this evening? >> well, i think most importantly you want to have -- first you want to have enough resources that you can cover anything that's going to happen. i think they have learned from the lessons of the early days where they let people go out there and destroy stuff for the first day or two. and then they had to come out with additional resources to take control of the city. you don't want that to happen. so first you want enough resources to make sure you secure the city and keep people safe, keep property safe from harm. and then tell your officers, people are going to be treated with respect. they're going to be treated fairly, but firmly. you don't want people destroying property and attacking people and doing all this stuff they've
done in the past. and you got to get that message -- make sure that message is clear to your staff. i think that's what they'll be focused on. >> all right. bernie kerik, former commissioner of the new york police department calling in here in the wake of this mistrial declared in this first officer-involved trial in the wake of the death of freddie gray. thank you so much for calling in. >> thank you. >> just a couple minutes remaining here as we continue our coverage, and hopefully we'll talk to more and more of our, you know, cnn crew who've been inside this courthouse and can really give us some more color. final thoughts from both of you. >> this has been a shocking case from day one in terms of the incident itself, the rioting and destruction of baltimore and its aftermath. and i think we were hopeful that there would be a conclusion at least to this aspect of the case. but it's going to have to wait for another day. >> and i think for, you know, the citizens of baltimore, i believe that they are probably
feeling disenfranchised. i think they are probably feeling hurt. i think they are probably feeling angry. but i would hope that they would be very cautious and careful in their response to this hung jury in the freddie gray case. >> danny, i know you're still with us as well. i've got three minutes left before we hand things over to "the lead." let me ask you because i hadn't asked you yet, forgive me, your reaction to this mistrial. were you surprised? >> i was surprised. i thought this case was leaning towards a not guilty verdict. when you look at the testimony, this case was about putting baltimore police procedures on trial. by that i mean baltimore the prosecution put on evidence that it was police procedure to do a, b, c and d. the defense' procedure was sort of what's been known as the judo defense. that may be true, but in my 150 arrests, officer porter testified i never belted anybody
in. that was some compelling evidence. they also called experts. i thought the defense made a compelling argument. again, they don't carry the burden. they just need to create reasonable doubt. i thought they did that. it will be fascinating to find out what the jury ended up voting, who voted in what direction. >> there are five other officers, five other defendants who still will be tried. how will what's happened in the last 30 minutes in baltimore in that courthouse effect those trials? >> it will effect it greatly. in fact, when we talk about whether or not -- it's easy to play devil's advocate now. when you talk about severance -- >> when we say sever that means separating -- >> separating the defendants. i think defense attorneys would agree severance is usually good for defendants. when a prosecutor charges five or six defendants all at once,
you get caught up in that cloud of guilt. the idea that, well, we don't have to find that each person did everything just that these guys all seemed to have been involved. and they could have benefitted from that. and again, they had their reasons for severing. it was part of their strategy. i'm not second guessing that so much. but as a just very general proposition it appears that severance enures to the benefit of the defendant. >> danny, final question. do they if you're guessing would they then retry this case quickly in the next couple of months and shift all the cases back, or continue on? >> i'm going to echo what my fellow panelists have said. prosecutors have a difficult choice ahead of them. you could argue that the speed with which they brought this case may have contributed to the mistrial. so do they take their time in reconsidering whether to bring charges? or do they proceed full speed ahead and go right towards the second trial? it's a decision that only they can ultimately make.
>> danny, paul, sunny, i cannot thank all of you enough. this is a huge day here for the city of baltimore as a mistrial has been officially declared. i'm brooke baldwin. special live coverage continues now with my colleague jake tapper. this is cnn breaking news. welcome to "the lead." i'm jake tapper. we have breaking news off the top in today's national lead. a big decision just coming in from baltimore this hour where a judge moments ago declared a mistrial after a third day of jury deliberations in the first freddie gray trial. william porter was the first of six officers to go on trial. freddie gray of course died back in april after he was dragged into a police van, shackled and never put into a seat belt, according to police. cell phone video of freddie gray's arrest sparked days of protests and destructive riot. cnn's jean casarez joins me now live in baltimore. jean, what can you tell us right now? obviously police are bracing